Hello, على الأربعاء 3 شباط 2016 23:40، كتب Andreas Tille: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:27:07PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote: >>> there seems to be something wrong with this package. >>> A DFSG package should not be in non-free. >>> >> >> This is the package that you rejected last November because of the >> non-free file dbmalloc.h [1]. The package has the +dfsg suffix because I >> excluded the postscript Manual.ps which cannot be built from source. >> It's my understanding that even non-free packages should meet the dfsg >> as far as possible. > > Sounds sensible. > >> Would you prefer I put the Manual.ps back in so that there is no >> repacked tarball? Otherwise, do you have a more appropriate alternative >> to +dfsg for the repack suffix? > > I do not think that the tarball name in itself should be a rejection > reason. I also use this suffix for repackaged tarballs. Some people > are using +ds but I'd consider this nitpicking. >
According to uscan(1) [1], it does look like ds is more appropriate in this case. > BTW, did you possibly contact the copyright holders for choosing a > free license? > I haven't. I'd have to do some investigative work to find a valid email address, but I might as well do that now. Thanks and regards Afif 1. "Common suffixes might be +dfsg1 to indicate the removal of files that are not DFSG-compliant or +ds1 for other reasons such as removal of prebuilt files or large embedded code copies." -- Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي http://afif.ghraoui.name